We don't need to escalate the tone of this discussion. I'm putting out
my views on why someone should (or in some cases, should not) vote for
me to be on the board. That's all. We can have discussions where we
talk about our disagreements and not have it become "drama."
Noisebridge is in some ways a very conservative organization, where
even speaking about going against the status quo is met with hostility
(albeit the online variety. But it does affect the tone of the
debate.) I think we could temper our arguments if we changed/abandoned
the high-stakes consensus process with its nuclear-option blocking.
People would feel at more ease voicing dissenting opinions without
fear that they would be seen as personally blocking an issue, and we
wouldn't need to subvert it with do-acracy.
-Al
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Wladyslaw Zbikowski
<embeddedlinuxguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Albert Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we could use _some_ rules that _are_ enforced.
>>> I want to see what rules the majority of members would like
>> to see for Noisebridge. These are rules that would be simple and small
>>> even if we don't get rid of consensus altogether for a majority voting system, I
>> think the way we conduct our consensus process needs to change.
>> Jesus Christ, what happened while I was gone; did somebody burn the
> fucking Reichstag?
>